I found this recent story released by the Press Enterprise to be quite amusing. For the record, TMC, Vivian Moreno, Dvonne Pitruzzello, Mary Shelton and many others had been talking about the over spending at City Hall for years. We started investigating when the Finance Department was under the direction of the accounting legend, former CFO Paul Sundeen. The Master of Manipulating the books. He would come to city council to tell the council and mayor how great our credit rating was. We were so disgusted, we knew otherwise, all you had to do was read their documents and follow the money. What is quite sidesplitting in the PE article is that some council members were puzzled by how the city went from a budget that appeared balance in June 2015, to a deficit estimated at $8 million in February 2016 (we believe the deficit is more like $19-25 million). The response that hit the jugular was that one council member asked the question whether officials had manipulated the numbers.

But City Manager John Russo, stated in the PE that he thinks the problem in not malfeasance, but outdated systems of practices…well alrighty now, should his answer be taken at face value or seriously? But he goes on to say, “I don’t think there was malicious intent there; I think the attitude was, ‘This is the way we’ve always done it.'” He went on to say, “They won’t be doing it that way anymore.” Mr. Russo don’t we pay you to know? Maybe we should hire another consultant to find out for sure? OH, we can’t afford it!

I have to say that there is only one way which comes to accounting practices, and that is the right way, it’s called BEST PRACTICES. But, I ask the question, as myself with a science background. There are many statistical applications that can be utilized to receive a favorable or desired result. Is this what happened?

What is more disparaging is that the City will not comment on the reasons for Mason’s departure, which leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because what they are doing is not being upfront with the facts and being transparent. I thought Mr. Russo was all about transparency? We the taxpayer, the CEO, the Employer, needs to know what is going on with our company…our City!

Mr. Russo again sugar coats everything and will hold no one accountable for the misdeeds that occurred in our city. He has so far found that the City officials did not follow policy in the City Attorneys Office or Finance Department. Former City Attorney Greg Priamos paid his friends by issuing no contracts and therefore was no accountability. Russo has now dismantled the Finance Department for what is believed, as “cooking the books.” Brent Mason, Michael Gomez and Scott Catlett are GONE! I think Human Resources is next. I’m sure all the Department heads are looking for new jobs.

Thirty Miles of Corruption started receiving the news of Brent’s departure about a month ago from an anonymous source who sometimes appears to be wholly inadequate… Vivian Moreno was at the RRR neighborhood meeting March 7th, she asked John Russo very specifically if Brent Mason was leaving and are we headed for BANKRUPTCY? He stated “He could not respond to personal issues, but the Finance Department is wholly inadequate for an organization I am in charge of.” As far as the bankruptcy issue he would not really elaborate but basically said “no!” Do I believe him? NO!

When Councilmember Mike Gardner states “There’s always this magic pot of gold that appears,” common sense will tell there is no pot of gold, there is no magic money, and there is no money tree. The Councilmembers were so stupid they actually believed there was a pot of gold? Now you have Assistant City Manager Marianna stating the imbalances were disguised? We do not live in the Emerald Green Land of OZ either. We live in Riverside. They were STEALING from Riverside Public Utilities. The City always spent way more than what was budgeted. It was a ticking time bomb..

THERE IS NO MAGIC MONEY….. why do I say that? The City of Riverside magically found 10 million dollars to pay off our Prop 218 lawsuit. The $10 million was to be paid from the General Fund back to the Water Fund. The creative finance people seemingly found the money? More pots of gold? Or is this the straw that breaks the camels back. I suggest all you really smart council people check to see how legal that was, to take the magic money the way you approved it. Let me give you a very simple explanation, we tax retail, “YES!” We tax wholesale, “NO!” Council approved a wholesale tax… “STUPID!” Again, there is no Magic Money…..there was no real payment from the general fund of $10 million. You had electric pay water. Let me explain that to you even easier. You had the Electric Ratepayer pay the Water Ratepayer.

Paul Davis stated they were ‘cooking the books’… Mike Gardner believes there was no wrong doing, Mike Gardner also believes in pots of gold… Who do you believe? The Council is ultimately responsible for the disguising, cooking, and lying about the true financial position of the city.

VOTE MORENO FOR RIVERSIDE MAYOR 2016!

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S REGIONAL COUNTIES MOST, “NEGATIVE,” “RAUNCHY,” “LOW CLASS,” “VISIONS OF GRANDEUR,” “FULL OF B.S.,” “IGNORANT,” “MISGUIDED,” “BULLYISH,” “FILTHY,” “SICK,” “PERVERTED,” “DEFAMATORY,” “STUPID,” “PATHETIC,” “DESPICABLE,” “DISAPPOINTING,” “BELOW THE BELT,” “A NEW LOW,” “SHOCKING,” “OFFENSIVE,” “OBNOXIOUS,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” “FIT TO BE VIEWED FROM THE REAR” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! YES WE ADMIT WE OUR ALL OF THAT AND MORE, WHICH IN CURRENT TERMS IS KNOWN AS “UNPOLITICALLY CORRECT.” TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. … AGAIN, THANK YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! CONTACT US: thirtymilescorruption@hotmail.com

THANK-YOU RESIDENTS FOR YOUR SUBMISSIONS…REMEMBER POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS A DETRIMENT TO THE FREEDOMS WE BEHOLD TODAY.

Remember, no one for a second should think that this is okay. To remove the power of the elected legislate, our council members, of placing issues on the agenda by a ceremonial Mayor, who has no power to legislate, and an appointed City Manager, who has no power to legislate, defines, simply, a political coup d’état, a sudden and illegal seizure of government. It simply, a power grab by those who have no power. What does this mean? This means that issues such as the Red Light Cameras, the questioning of how monies are spent by the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, the Sewer Fund Audit (incidentally have found discrepancies) and the issue of a toxic waste spill known as AG Park, which has been reported twice by the news agency KTLA. We are peeling the layers of the onion folks, and some of our elects don’t like it because it is raining on their parade of obligations. Obligations which concern themselves to others, negating their obligation to the taxpayer. Again, the issue of AG Park has yet to be placed on the agenda and now folks, we have this item #19 to contend with. Again, I must refer to Joe Isuzu and ask for his opinion regarding Mayor Bailey’s position..

Wow..I didn’t see that coming!

What needs to remembered is that the elected legislative body, the Council member, set’s policy, not staff or the mayor.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

The contradiction of this statement is that it is outside of Riverside City Hall…

Will we be losing more of our Democracy as a City, and turn into a Hogan’s Heroes form of government, with the bumbling Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz running the camp? Where’s transparency when Sergeant Schultz continues to insist he knows nothing? Colonel Klink states everybody’s doing it, two council members are the only ones that seem to have a problem with it. Will Sergeant Schultz take his excessive taxpayer pension check and cadillac health benefits and run for the hills? “F-Troop” the taxpayer, right Barber! Of course, you’ll be alright on the backs of the taxapayer!

What did he say?

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT CONCERNS OUR CITY AS A WHOLE, WE ASK ALL TO COME TO THIS TUESDAYS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO EXPRESS YOUR VOICE! TUESDAY DECMEBER 9, 2014 AT 6:30PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL.

Persons Who May Place Matters on the Agenda (ORIGINAL AND CURRENT VERSION)Except for matters pending before any committee, commission or other advisory body of the City or the City Council, matters pertinent to and within the jurisdiction of the City may be placed on the agenda by the Mayor, any Councilmember, the City Manager, any Department Director, or any other person, subject to the discretion of the City Manager.

As I understand this language, an item can be placed on the agenda by the Mayor, any Councilmember, the City Manager or any Department Director. Any other person, such as the public, is subject to the discretion of the City Manager. I say this, because it would be a contradiction for the City Manager to place an item on the agenda, and still be under the scrutiny and discretion of himself to remove it, hence, below it is not surprising to find that the City Manager is in complete control of items placed on the agenda.

Persons Who May Place Matters on the Agenda (NEW PROPOSED MODIFIED VERSION)Except for matters pending before any committee, commission or other advisory body of the City or the City Council, matters pertinent to and within the jurisdiction of the City may be placed on the agenda by the Mayor, any Councilmember subject to the discretion of the City Manager or with a majority vote of the City Council during the “Future Items” for consideration section of the City Council agenda. Department Directors may have matters placed on the agenda subject to the discretion of the City Manager.

This new version will create a City which the Mayor and the City Manager control and new proposal or agenda items, which leaves it to their discretion only, if it goes to public City Council for discussion. The power will be taken away from the elected Council members, thus leading us to a power less elected council. Control will be place back to the status quo good ol boy complex, which means the Mayor, those Council members who play to get along, a City Manager who will ensure the complex agenda is directed forward, while those in the minority will never have a voice. This is not about people folks, it’s about a power grab! Cindy Roth and the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce won’t have to go to each council member and tell them to get along.

A conspiracy to take charge? Another attempted power grab by the Mayor and City Manager? Remember, the City Manager serves at the pleasure of the City Counsel, it’s not the other way around. Or does the City Manager serve at the pleasure of the Mayor, a ceremonial position, not a legislative position. Our City has already seen what an abuse of power can do within the City Manager position, and it has cost the taxpayer enormously.

What we also need to recognize as a community, is that when the Mayor and those in status quo are telling the community that many cities are doing this, that should be a red flag, let not history repeat itself. The of control of agenda issues are more than likely a result of the lobbying and teachings of the League of California Cities. Who teach cities how to get around the law. Then we have the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce whom receives taxpayers monies through the tactfulness of the President/CEO Cindy Roth.

Cindy Roth Ron Redfern

Further, what gets into the Riverside Press Enterprise and doesn’t get published, may be a result of former Publisher/CEO of the Press Enterprise, Ron Redfern. Incidentally, Chairman of the Board for the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce.

WE’VE BEEN RECEIVING MANY EMAILS AS TO WHY TMC STAFF DIDN’T FILL THE HOGAN PIC. LET US KNOW WHO YOU THINK IS QUALIFIED TO FIT THE PIC OF HOGAN! AND THE TMC CRACK PHOTOSHOP STAFF (WHICH IS MYSELF AND TWO OTHER GUYS) WILL REPLACE THE IMAGE WITH SOMEONE WHO DESERVES THAT POSITION! LET US KNOW AT THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

THANK-YOU

P.S. THANKS TO CLOSE TO A THOUSAND NEW READER’S THIS WEEKEND ON TMC!

LOCAL EMAIL IN REFERENCE TO CURRENT TMC POSTING CAUSES STIR IN AT CITY HALL LEADING TO APOLOGY! You decide was their City Hall pressure to change their tune in the email below? The secondary and tertiary email were sent to City Council members. A phone call was made by Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey, and he didn’t appear to like the Hogans Heroes bumbling Nazi pic and ask for a retraction from the writer. Incidentally, Mayor Bailey is scheduled to speak at the Monday’s December 7, 2014 RRR (Residents for Responsible Representation) Meeting. The antithesis is the apology, though the group title is Residents for Responsible Representation. Before terms such as offensive, inappropriate, mis spirited, distasteful, embarrassing and horrific were used to describe TMC, we must view the last two emails, the writer states how “I don’t want to see our Councilmen “handcuffed” by City Staff.” It was sent to over 200 residents because it was information that need to be disseminated. One phone call changed the atmosphere.

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Initial email sent (below), describing this Tuesday’s City Council Item #19 up for discussion.

CLICK ABOVE IMAGE TO ENLARGE

and ANOTHER VERSION OF THE EMAIL (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE).

In this email Tom, states that “it absolutely eliminates the public involvement,” he goes on to say “This is not meant to affect the legislators, only the unwashed, undisciplined voting masses.” Now who will decide who is unwashed and not washed? The Colonel or the Sergeant? Sounds a bit “Naziistic.” Sounds a bit “Offensive,” don’t you think? Again, the following: With this tweak of the city charter the public will not have to worry their pretty little heads about the self-important things the city government bureaucrats will do for us — or to us. Therefore, should you as residents be concerned of this type of dictatorial mentality? Should we be concerned with the ‘status quo’ mentality? Mayor Bailey stated in his campaign that he would not be apart of this “status quo.” IS HE LIAR? You decide here is the evidence..

IS HE ‘STATUS QUO?” THE VERY ELEMENT HE CAMPAIGNED AGAINST? HE CERTAINLY NOT CHALLENGING STATUS QUO AS HE INDICATED IN HIS CAMPAIGN FLYER! (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE).

I think anyone reading the quotes attributed to people commenting to the PE speak for themselves. One wants to limit who speaks to “maintain decorum.” Wow! Another does not tell you that Councilmember have been able to place items on the Council (key word – Council) Agenda up until a few weeks ago. I’ve placed items on the agenda by simply informing our City Clerk. Now, there are a few at City Hall who want to limit my ability to effect change that the residents of Riverside demand of me. Putting an end to Red Light Cameras, non-emergency ambulance competition, a plan to deal with aggressive panhandlers – all Items placed on the Council Agenda by Councilmembers. “City Hall” is getting tired of these changes. They like things the way they were – Councilmembers going-along to get-along, let the bureaucrats decide how to spend our tax dollars. PLEASE SHOW UP THIS TUESDAY AND TELL THE BUREAUCRATS THEY WORK FOR YOU AND TO STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE – THAT’S THE COUNCIL’S JOB!

FORMER COUNCILMAN FRANK SCHIAVONE SENDS LETTER TO COUNCIL MEMBERS NOVEMBER 2014 REGARDING ITEMS BEING PLACED ON THE AGENDA AND HIS RECENT CONTACT WITH FORMER CITY MANAGER BRAD HUDSON:

To All Councilmembers:

Hope this finds you all well. Recently, I was asked if I was familiar with Section IX(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Order of Business for the City Council of the City of Riverside. My response was yes, and that I was directly involved in its modification and adoption while sitting as a Councilmember. I offer the following comments for any historical value you may find useful.

1) The entire essence is captured in its title. “Rules of Procedure and Order of Business for the City Council of the City of Riverside” (not the City Manager Rules)

2) Reference made “Subject to the discretion of the City Manager” only refers to persons other than the Mayor, any Councilmember, the City Manager, any Department Director. During my 8 years as a Councilmember with four different City Managers (2 Acting-2 permanent) is was never suggested otherwise.

3) Just for information, I recently contacted by phone former City Manager Brad Hudson and posed this question to him. “Did you ever think you had veto power over any Councilmember wanting to place an item on the Council Agenda?” His response to me was, and I quote, “No, never, but what a great idea if you can get away with it!” (He started laughing at the mere suggestion).

4) Any attempt of “Clarification” by any Administrator is nothing more than an attempt eliminate your authority as a Legislator and have you follow by example, rather than lead by example.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “OFFENSIVE,” “INAPPROPRIATE,” “HURTFUL,” “MEAN SPIRITED,” “DISTASTEFUL,” “EMBARRASSING,” HORIFFIC,” “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO THE ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVLY EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (WE BELIEVE THIS WILL END SOON, SINCE THE FOCUS IS NOW ON THE IMPROPRIETIES OF MR. “Z”, WE TRIED TO TELL YOU, BUT NOBODY LISTENED), AND DON’T FORGET WE ARE PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… A STRATEGIC LEGAL MANEUVER THAT CAN BE DONE ONLY IN RIVERSIDE WITHOUT A CONTRACT… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! WE JUST CAN’T SPELL! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT BY CONTACTING US AT: THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

DA FILES NO CHARGES DAY AFTER APRIL FOOLS, BUT IT’S NO PISSING CONTEST EITHER!

Karen Wright, Was her actions Illegal or Just Bad Business? Or just an April Fools day prank by the D.A.’s Office? The Day after April Fool’s Day Community Activist, Karen Wright received this letter from the Office of the District Attorney, Paul Zellerbach. What’s foolish about the whole thing is that April Fools Day was the 160th day without the DA filing charges. The day Ms. Wright showed up to court in December 2012 could have been the first April Fools experience! The DA never showed because they never filed charges. Many in the community are asking if this is why scrutiny is now being placed on D.A Zellerbach’s office after a series of questionable actions. In Ms. Wright’s case, she even had to call to find out what the DA’s plans were, since they didn’t have the common courtesy to call her and postone the court day. Now according to the below letter, she appears to be tried and convicted by the DA’s office. The DA states, “You are advised that your actions on that occasion were criminal, and are punishable by a fine of up to the amount of $1,000.00 and /six months in the county jail.” It certainly seems a bit wreckless to create that assumption, being the very actions could have been challenged in the court of law, of course, her civil rights being infringed. If this ever happened or was the case, I’d suggest anyone to take case out of Riverside. But the bottom line if this was criminal and punishable, why no charges?

Now, we know according to Zellerbach letter, talking 16.8 seconds after the bell, it is a crime. So why wasn’t Mike Fine arrested when he past the bell beyond the 16 second rule? It’s quite possible that maybe it’s just important to cover your bases with campaign contributions. Possibly according to public records Zellerbach has. But I guess when citizens have true concerns they all appear to be dismissed as not applicable, or in Zellerbach’s famous words, “Is it illegal, or just bad business?” when it comes to the antics of elected officials.

Citizens participating in government are not called patriots; they are called gadflies. Newspapers perpetuate this idea that involved citizens are pests of the public process. This is a government of, by and for the elite — not we, the people! -Commenter Paul Jacobs from Temecula

Something which is interesting, word is coming down the pipeline from an anonymous source that Zellerbach in his younger days may have crossed the line. Did Zellerbach have a stalking issue with a former girlfriend years ago? What would this mean now if anything, about Zellerbach’s current disposition?

A question for City News, “Are you on file with the DA’s Office for this reporting, as TMC is?”

In an incident that made national news, Public Speaker Karen Wright appeared at her December 27th court date regarding her charge of disrupting a public meeting. Later found through a public request act of the police report, City Attorney Gregory Priamos had given instruction to RPD Officer Sahagun to stop Wright from going past the three minute allotted time by sixteen seconds.

The situation became increasingly incomprehensible when Priamos would not comment do to “attorney-client privilege.” Attorney client privilege? That’s what we said… In lieu things continued to take a strange turn when the filing by the Paul Zellerbach’s District Attorney’s office was never issued. Karen was told by the court to call the DA’s office to find out if the DA intends to file or not. Attorney Letitia Pepper attempted to request the issue be addressed in court so she could ask for a dismissal. The court would not allow this. The waiting game continues, since the DA did not have the courtesy to follow through, the justice system leaves Ms. Wright in the dark at this point, and she herself must make the effort to contact and find out their intentions. How many DA departments be connected to and placed on hold to ask the question, “Mr. DA, do you plan to file charges against me?” Could this inaction by the DA’s office be construed as a continued form of harassment toward Ms. Wright? Or to continue the confusion so a warrant for her arrest is issued? That’s so Riverside. Most Riversidian’s agree, the Council and Mayor should have dropped the charges rather than enduring more city embarrassment, but currently the DA appears to be dancing around the issue.. So what is DA Paul Zellerbach’s relationship with the City of Riverside? Possibly with BB&K? The Riverside Grand Jury? Local Superior Court Judges? The Attorney General Office of the State of California? and of course local cronies? Well…

Outdance the DA on the current issues? Tough competition, any takers?

One of the first items for new Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey would have been to drop charges. Currently, Chief Sergio Diaz has yet to publicly apologize to Ms. Wright for his behavior and unrestrained verbality toward her earlier this year at a City Council Meeting. No complaints were issued against Chief Diaz by Wright. Chief Diaz was not arrested at this incident for his disturbance at Council Chambers. So it appears that there may two sets of rules, one for officials and one for residents, which seems to go against the very fabric of what this nation was built on.

Just wait until the trial and CA Greg Priamos takes the stand under oath and has to testify who ordered him to order the officer to “stop” her. I don’t think his “apology” will quite cut it here. – Mary Shelton, Commenter on the PE

Okay John! this can expressly be construed as the DA does not have a case. Hall went on to say, “There’s nothing that we have to do by law to notify anyone that nothing’s going to be done on that particular day.” Okay John, I get it, you have the power but you had over 8 weeks to figure this out! What goes? By the way do you take dance lessons, because it appears you are dancing around the issue as well as the Big Kahuna, Zellerbach. He further stated according to the Press Enterprise, that in the past six years, only one other case has come in under penal code section § 403 — disturbing a public meeting — and the district attorney ended up filing different charges against the suspect. Penal Code § 403 states every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor. So they couldn’t charge someone with the original arrest charge of penal code § 403 and had to concoct subsequent charge or unlterior trumped up charge? So why would the DA have to do this? Would it be because of the embarrassment of the whole charge to begin with? As of January 4, 2013, Wright’s case remains “under review” and remains unlisted on the courts databases. “Under review?” Is this code word for “no case?” It’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office show on a court date, it’s only common courtesy that the DA’s office collaborate with the defendent, otherwise can this be construed by the DA’s office of a pronounce expression of arrogance? Information for the DA’s Office only.. we have included a printable icon for ease of printability in order for the DA’s office to file TMC articles..

According to a Press Release, Councilman Paul Davis says that City Attorney Gregory Priamos was soley responsible for the directive to arrest Public Speaker Karen Wright if she spoke beyond the three minute rule, completely disregarding the authority of the Council and Mayor. Again a secondary example was seen when City Attorney Scott Barber spent $2 million dollars without Council approval. The question many are asking is “Who’s running the store?”, “Who’s in charge?” According to Columist Dan Bernstein of the Press Enterprise, it really appears that Riverside’s City Attorney Greg Priamos is running the show. Probably not without the help of the infamous Best, Best & Krieger, which have been siphoning hundred’s of thousands of dollars in legal fees without a contract! How should we explain this to the taxpayer? Possibly “attorney client privelidge?”

Why did Paul Zellerbach’s office not jump on and investigate the illegal transfer of money from the citizens water fund to the General Fund? You must understand why we had to go to outside Federal agencies. We couldn’t have him ponder if it was “illegal or just bad business?”

THE CLAPPING GAME, THE MAYOR AND LETITIA PEPPER…

James Roberts, reporter for the News Caller, covering the High Desert News, gives his play by play analysis of the events that fateful day when a citizen decided to approval clap. Roberts analyzes the First Amendment, the proper role of government and the nanny state; whereby no ones feeling can be hurt. Roberts also mentions that there were others clapping while Letitia was clapping. The question then arises is to why was Ms. Pepper targeted by Mayor Bailey? According to a statement given to the Press Enterprise, Mayor Bailey stated, ” I felt like she came down there with a purpose to get arrested and to provoke me into that response and she gave me no choice.”

Letitia Pepper, Esq. sent this letter in a form of an email to the Council and Mayor, July 2, 2013 to reiterate her position on clapping. Currently the City of Riverside has no rule on clapping, according to Ms. Pepper if would illegal to adopt a clapping rule after the fact. Mayor Rusty Bailey carries a Political Science Degree from West Point and was also a government teacher at Poly High.

Currently, according to the Letitia Pepper, Esq., she has attained an actual copy of the citizen arrest complaint against her by Mayor Rusty Bailey. It appears that Mr. Independent Voice himself, Mayor Rusty Bailey, crossed out the section where it discloses it’s a misdemeanor to make a false arrest. Who is able to do that? Again, this appears to always come up time and time again, are there two sets of rules? One for City Officials and one for the Citizens? With the city’s track record it certainly appears so. Regardless, Ms. Letitia Pepper went back to the RPD Station and filed a false arrest complaint against the Mayor Rusty Bailey. What will happen now, will his pop, Judge Bailey gather his network of friends together to help his son? Will Councilman Mike Gardner state again this time that she deserved it, as in Karen Wright’s case?

WONDER HOW MANY TIME MAYOR BAILEY PASSES THIS STATEMENT NEXT TO CITY HALL?

OOPS, THE GRAND JURY JUST RELEASED THERE FINDINGS BUT PRESS ENTERPRISE FORGOT TO MENTION THIS LITTLE TIDBIT OF INFO ABOUT CITY ATTORNEY GREGORY PRIAMOS!

According to the Grand Jury report below and the full document to follow, they found that Priamos spilled the beans after he was admonished by the Grand Jury not to discuss any of the details of the Dunbar case. The City Attorney appears to have thumbed his nose at them and decided to do whatever he pleased, thus violating PC 939.22. Further, when Priamos asked for a postponement of the initial interview, the Grand Jury asked an alternate in his office could take his place. He answered he was the only ‘qualified’ person.. That’s has to be a slap in the face to those who work under him.

The Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury. On April 12, 16, and 18, 2013, the Grand Jury received correspondence signed by the City Attorney with the subject line “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765.” According to sworn and recorded testimony, the City Attorney stated that after speaking with the Riverside Police Department, he “surmised” the Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, was the subject matter being investigated by the Grand Jury. Had the Grand Jury been investigating this subject matter, all confidentiality on

the part of the Grand Jury would have been compromised, as this document was copied to the following:

When asked why he copied these individuals, his response was, “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing”. After being admonished regarding secrecy, on April 22, 2013, the City Attorney filed a Motion and Motion to Modify with the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside that contained Exhibits B and C with the subject, “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765,” which is in violation of Penal Code §939.22. On May 20, 2013, the Office of the Riverside County Counsel sent a letter

EMAIL REGARDING MARY SHELTON IN REFERENCE TO THE GRAND JURY FINDINGS AGAINST THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Thank you for your quick response! I do sincerely hope you’re correct and that his interpretation of the grand jury process and its findings is more accurate than his interpretation of Prop 218 and the issue of utility money transfers proved to be. I’m not the only city resident who’s been watching his performance over time and not become very concerned by a trend rather than an isolated incident.

I appreciate your concern Mary. However the mere fact a Grand Jury makes findings and recommendations does not make their conclusions accurate. Please read the newspaper story when it runs. I think you will find the findings to be in error in this case. Best regards, Mike Sent from my iPhone On Jul 3, 2013, at 6:07 PM, “mary shelton” wrote: Greetings, I was perusing the Riverside County GJ site the past several days and found reports issued on both the RPD and the Riverside City Attorney’s office. I am very concerned about the findings issued by the Grand Jury in connection with City Attorney Greg Priamos and his office. I’m especially concerned by the following excerpt which alleges that a violation of PC 939.22 was committed: The Grand Jury found that the City of Riverside, Office of the City Attorney, did not recognize the responsibilities of the Grand Jury and did not honor the secrecy of the Grand Jury. On April 12, 16, and 18, 2013, the Grand Jury received correspondence signed by the City Attorney with the subject line “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765.” According to sworn and recorded testimony, the City Attorney stated that after speaking with the Riverside Police Department, he “surmised” the Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, was the subject matter being investigated by the Grand Jury. Had the Grand Jury been investigating this subject matter, all confidentiality on the part of the Grand Jury would have been compromised, as this document was copied to the following: The Hon. Mark Cope, Presiding Judge Creg G. Datig, Assistant District Attorney Pamela Wall County Counsel Scott C. Barber, City Manager Belinda J. Graham, Assistant City Manager James E. Brown, Supervising Deputy City Attorney Frank Hauptmann, Community Police Review Manager4 When asked why he copied these individuals, his response was, “to make them aware of what the Grand Jury was doing”. After being admonished regarding secrecy, on April 22, 2013, the City Attorney filed a Motion and Motion to Modify with the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside that contained Exhibits B and C with the subject, “Civil Grand Jury Investigation of Officer Involved Death of Brandon Dunbar on March 1, 2012, File No. CA 13-0765,” which is in violation of Penal Code §939.22. On May 20, 2013, the Office of the Riverside County Counsel sent a letter of admonishment to the City Attorney on behalf of the Grand Jury. He admitted that he was disseminating information about the GJ doing an investigation in connection with the RPD which is doubly clear by the individuals carbon copied. Even though as an experienced municipal attorney who’s a sworn officer of the court he should be well aware of the legalities of GJ proceedings including secrecy. After all, he’s witnessed at least several GJ reports involving the City of Riverside. The fact that he may or may have erred in what the GJ was actually investigating and the RPD GJ report doesn’t make that clear in the area of audio recording devices, the intent was still the same or he did it ‘surmising” that he was divulging information he was privy to about a civil GJ investigation. We the public including those who the CA has enforced laws and code violations against are expected to know and obey the law but the CA doesn’t have that same expectation being in a more educated position? This is just hard to fathom or would be if I was completely in the dark about other related problems in this same area. I can’t believe that an environment exists at City Hall where a city attorney would behave in such a fashion under the belief that it was appropriate. I asked the PE if they were writing about it. Apparently a story’s being done for publication. Best regards,

THE NEW BOOK THAT’S ON THE NUMBER ONE SPOT IN RIVERSIDE…

Why’ll a new book is becoming the rage in Riverside, called the “Shyster’s Daughter”, written by Paula Priamos, a relation to our City Attorney Gregory Priamos, which takes an intricate view of the family environment in which she grew up in.

Does Greg Priamos have a family history of unscrupulous legal work? Cousin Paula Priamos wrote a book the Shyster’s Daughter which give insight to the family dysfunctionality and immoral legal dealings. When contacted by Dvonne Pritruzzello, Paula Priamos assertained to remain distanced from cousin City Attorney Gregory Priamos..

Excerpts: “Your lucky he didn’t kill you,” I say. If death didn’t get him in the form of an actual bullet, it could’ve gotten him from shock. Primos men are known for strong minds and weak hearts.

“I see my father’s body doubled over the wheel. I see his chest and arms spilling out of the car, his head dangling, blood seeping out of the wet hole in his scalp.”

Riverside’s Measure A and how it relates to Highgrove resident’s water bill payments

From the desk of R.A. “Barney” Barnett

If you pay your water bill to the city of Riverside do you know that a portion of your water bill is not going for water related services?

I learned recently via a phone call from the Press Enterprise that residents of Highgrove who pay their water bill to the City of Riverside have 11.5 % of their water bill going to the City of Riverside’s General Fund that can be used for Riverside City Police protection, Riverside Library, or Riverside City Street repairs and other expenses not related to water service.

As you know, Highgrove receives protection from the Riverside County Sheriff Department, not the City of Riverside Police Department and we have our own library in Highgrove. And the streets are maintained by Riverside County since we are in the un-incorporated part of Riverside County.

Some Highgrove residents receive water service from the Riverside/Highland Water Co. that has offices in Grand Terrace. The newer homes in Highgrove have Riverside/Highland water service whereas most of the homes west of the Union Pacific Railroad track and portions of the older neighborhoods north of Center St. by Michigan Ave. have City of Riverside water service.

Alicia Robinson, the Press Enterprise reporter, said that since Highgrove is outside the city limits of Riverside, Highgrove residents do not get to vote on whether or not 11.5 % of their water bill payments should go to the City of Riverside’s General Fund. But these funds can be used for city services other than water related expenses. To make matters worse, some residents within the city limits of Riverside have Municipal Water and do not pay their water bill to the City of Riverside but these residents will get to vote on Measure A because they reside within the city limit boundaries of Riverside.

This all may seem a little confusing but when you add it up, it amounts to $6.7 million dollars per year that is being transferred from revenues received for water bill payments to the City of Riverside’s General Fund for purposes other than water related issues.

Here are the facts as I understand them:

If Measure A passes, this amendment will allow the City of Riverside to continue taking 11.5 % of Highgrove resident’s water bill payments and putting the money directly into Riverside’s General Fund. A lawsuit has been filed based on the transfer being an illegal maneuver.

I recently received a mail-out addressed to: “Postal Customer” which appears to be a sample of the ballot that has the City of Riverside’s logo as the return address. It states: “Official Measure A Ballot Question” which is a 4 page mailer that lists some of the services that would be cut if Measure
A fails. This list includes cutting 9 police officers and 12 firefighters and other city programs. Critics of Measure A say the city is pointing to public safety and youth program cuts as a scare tactic to get public support to help pass Measure A.

Also, in a half page Advertisement in the Press Enterprise of May 26, 2013, the supporters of Measure A (Riverside Public Utilities) stated the following in the second paragraph of their advertisement:

“But for Riverside Public Utilities (RPU), our role is also defined by what is in our name-“Public Utilities”. That means that we are owned by the community that we serve, and that each and every user who is expecting those energy and water services to be there at the flip of a switch or the turn of a tap is a shareholder in our company”.

So if Highgrove residents are“shareholders”in this public utility, the Highgrove residents who pay the City of Riverside for their water should get to vote. Aren’t we part of the “each and every user” who is expecting water to come out of the tap if we pay our water bill?

If we do not get a vote on Measure A, then our water bills should be reduced by 11.5 % so we are not paying for services that we do not receive. The money diverted into the general fund is totally unrelated to paying our water bill and opponents say it is a violation of proposition 218 which was approved back in 1996.

Measure A is on the June 4, 2013 ballot. If you received a 4 page flyer addressed to “Postal Customer” and you live outside the city limits, you will not get to vote about your 11.5 % of your payment going to other uses in the City of Riverside. But if you do not pay the entire amount of your water bill, you will be considered delinquent and subject to having your water shut off. Even if Measure A passes you may see more lawsuits about the legality of this vote and how revenue is being collected for water service and used for other purposes.

ETHIC’S COMPLAINT: JUST A FORMALITY? COUNCIL NO SHOW, BUT LAWYERED UP FOR ETHICS SHOWDOWN: PANEL FINDS NO ETHICS VIOLATIONS BY COUNCIL..SHOULD WE BE SURPRISED?

I guess the question becomes what is the purpose of a ethics panel but a visual formality designed to fail for the residents, and each time based on criteria, fall in favor of the complainnant by an orchestrated series of line items.

Holley Whatley, a outside Prop 218 attorney, hired by council in care of you the taxpayer to represent them, stated it is not up to the council to decide whether the language in Measure A was improper, it is up to the courts to decide.

Originally Measure A language was criticized, because it remained a violation of Prop. 218, the very reason the City was sued in the first place. The Measure was sold to the public as a charter amendment, rather than a tax. This was brought to council attention early on. Later during the campaign the City and its staff were changing their tune and had to admit it was a general tax. Certainly the ballot Measure states one thing, but it

Justin Scott Coe, “I feel people fully understood what they were voting on.”

Norman Powel, Chair, “I have some problem with the wording, but I’m not a constitutional attorney.”

But does the council have a duty to research and investigate the correctness of an issue before a decision is made in the best interest of the taxpayer? Does the same apply to the Ethics Panel? If so why does the criteria to elude to a finding contradict it’s design? Is it simply constructed to always resolve in an appropriate and desired conclusion? So far there has never been a conclusive finding when a complaint has been filed. Why is that, well when you look at the overally construction, it appears that the criteria in order to reach a finding, is orchestrated and designed to reach a conclusion of a favorable resolve for the City, not for the residents. Each and every time, therefore, is the Ethics Panel only a formality? A distraction? A concerted formula designed by a legal eagle to resolve in a favorable conclusion each and every time? Well, to many in the community it appears so.

THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE CONTINUES TO REFER TO MEASURE-A AS A “GENERAL TAX!”

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

In both these documents the City of Riverside initially referred to Measure A as a ‘Charter Amendment.” Even City Attorney Gregory Priamos in his impartial analysis as indicated in this ballot insert, he states this is a ‘Charter Amendment.’ It was a different story on June 4, 2013 at City Council whereby City Attorney Priamos made the following public statement:

On June 4, 2013 a General Municipal Election was held for the purpose of submitting a “general tax” to the qualified electors pursuant to Article 13C of the California Constitution.

This General tax was submitted to the qualified electors and Designated as Measure A on the ballot, The Riverside Local Services and Clean Water Measure proposed to add 1201.4 to the city charter, to authorize a “general tax” pursuant to Article 13 c of the California Constitution.

The No on Measure A committee has repeatedly stated that Measure A violates Prop 218 and that voters cannot approve a charge on a water bill which will be used for anything other than water purposes. This is inaccurate.

Article 13 c expressly provides that the voters can approve a general purpose tax, such as Measure A.

Article 13 d applies to property related fees, and is not, or has ever been at issue here.

To hold that voters cannot vote to decide upon Measure A, would take away the power of the voters under the CA Constitution to vote on taxes. The city manager and I have repeatedly responded to this inaccurate assertion on an almost weekly basis at City Council Meetings in April, May and June, leading up to the election.

Moreover, the City Manager specifically noted during his presentation on May 7 discussion calendar, that Measure A is a “general purpose tax”. The City Manager detailed the financial support that Measure A would provide to the General Fund.

Deputy District Attorney Susan Wilson further reinterated during City Council Discussion on May 7, 2013 that this was a “general purpose tax” under Article 13 c of the California Constitution.

Most importantly the city met its legal obligation under the expressed terms of the settlement agreement, that the revenue transfer, which is how it is defined in the settlement, be submitted to the voters for approval at the June election. On June 4, 2013 the voters approved this general tax by an overwhelming majority in accord with Proposition 218. The voters have now spoken and the city will act in accord with the will of the voters.

What Priamos forgot to mention was that the majority of voters read it as a Charter Amendment; except Justin Scott Coe of the Ethics Panel who saw general tax somewhere in there… Initially the City was parading around the City Council Members, City Manager Scott Barber, Chief of Police Sergion Diaz and Fire Chief Steve Earley on a City wide Measure A informational tour. Chief Earley at the Goeske Center was pinned by one resident, who he then admitted to the public that Measure A was a general tax. City Manager Scott Barber had to follow shortly and admit the same. In the following document, the city is already working, it states that they are ‘not increasing water rates’ but are planning to ‘consider modifications’ to it’s water rates… Okay does anybody smell something fishy, or is it just me? Further it states they want to ‘amend water rate schedules.’

Don’t forget to show to question these activities on Friday July 19, 2013, Public Utilities Board Room at 8:30 am, 3901 Orange Street, Riverside, CA

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

On June 25, 2013 at City Council in the City of Riverside, Letitia Pepper, Esq., former Best, Best & Krieger Attorney, was arrested for clapping in approval of statements made by public speakers. If you recall, public speaker Karen Wright was arrested last November 2012 for speaking 16.8 seconds over the 3 minute rule. Mike Fine, Deputy Superintendent of RUSD, went over the 3 minute with no provocation or arrest by the mayor.. Regardless, Mayor William Rusty Bailey, as an audience member coined, “Lil Hitler”, felt strongly enough to sign the citizen’s arrest form that activated the arrest of Ms. Pepper. Bailey, a government teacher, should know the constructs of the First Amendment, otherwise, what was he teaching his students? A little power can certainly make you forget that you are there to serve the public.

Once she was arrested and removed from council chambers, the audience responded with clapping in support of Ms. Pepper. Was her First Amendment right of free speech impinged? It is likely that this could be explored in a law suit against the City of Riverside. What will clammed up City Attorney Gregory Priamos have to say about this? Well he’s pretty much saying nothing about nothing these days..

So why is Bailey clapping in approval without being arrested? Has he now become the decider? What will King Bailey do next? Send the masses of clappers to internment camps?

Ten days ago this document was handed to Mayor Bailey in demand for a public apology for unlawful and discourteous actions at Council Chambers June 11, 2013. Ms. Pepper was representing three citizens, Vivian Moreno, Joel Udayke and Dvonne Pitruzzello regarding his position on no applauding during public comment. Was this in fact, a personal vendetta against former BB&K Attorney, Letitia Pepper by Mayor Bailey? Why was Ms. Pepper targeted for removal and arrest my Mayor Rusty Bailey, when there were multiply clappers? Why weren’t the other clapppers removed and arrested? Is this the Mayor’s attempt to control public participation in government? Is the arrest a show of force in an attempt to initimidate the public not to participate in government? Currently the Mayor Bailey has passed the 10 day response time. We’ve yet to hear of a statement from Mayor Bailey or even the clammed up in his office City Attorney Gregory Priamos. But is there more to Priamos’s life than we know? More to come on TMC..

THE CITATION (CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE)

But I guess the questions many are asking these days, even those who voted for Rusty, what is he doing? Again as many residents have said, they feel the city will retaliate against them if something derrogatory is said regarding city politics. So why is it? Many are asking, is it because of the history of Rivserside, whereby a conglomerate of politically tied families made the rules and the basis for politics in the City of Riverside? Which of course includes the Bailey family. You have Mayor William Rusty Bailey’s father judge and then you have the fathers friend who was a founder of incidently, Best, Best & Krieger. Halleluah, are we actually coming to anwers of why the City of Riverside is the way that it is politically?

Judge John Gabbert, in younger days, a Quandrangle of Influence within the City of Riverside? What is the connection between Best, Best & Krieger and the City of Riverside? What is taking that hold on Riverside that has everything to do with old family influences? You get my drift, I wouldn’t attempt to try this case on the constitutionality of ‘clapping’ within the City of Riverside.

Will Zellerbach do anything about this? According to his campaign contributions, I guess not..

One homeless person was seen doing laundry in the water pool in front of City Hall on June 25, 2013.

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

UPDATE: 06.27.2013: SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, SEVEN ETHICS COMPLAINTS, BE THERE TODAY AT 3:00PM MAYOR’S CHAMBERS.. THIS IN REGARDS TO THE COUNCIL INADVERTAINLY PASSING THE MEASURE A INITIATIVE WHICH ACCORDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL. DID THE COUNCIL WILLFULLY MISINFORM AND MISLEAD THE VOTERS ON THE VERY NATURE OF THIS MEASURE A ISSUE! OR DID THEY JUST PASS THIS RESOLUTION 7-0 BASED ON WHAT THEIR CITY ATTORNEY HAD TO SAY?

Clapping is our 1st Amendment justification for existing when we feel there is a need to express a sign of approval. But will this change at City Council? Whereby have we become forgetful that one of the most important reasons for this country existing is our first amendment right of expression in a public forum. Will this cease to exist? With the Fourth of July just around the corner, will a government teacher attempt to change that? Have we become so politically correct as a society that we become afraid that a simple clap of approval may cause a divisive action to others, result in someone’s feeling being hurt or as Rusty would say as to not allow others to be included?

Or have we just become complacent and it is easier to sit and watch the world go by?

Or would we rather just bow our head in frustration as if we are carrying the whole financial world on are shoulders. How bout it Berny?

Or would it be easier to hope someone else would do the clapping for us? Even if it can’t think for itself?

Or would a thumbs up do the same? I’d clap just for double dipping…isn’t that now construed as a crime?

We can certainly clap if we approve of an event which is entertaining.

Or could we slap our own head wishing we would have clapped?

Clapping for approval is simply better than the sound of one hand clapping, or even better than receiving the clap.

Or could we just have an Orwellian software choice on Rusty’s computer which he can control the quantity of claps, and to pick and choose when a clap is allowed?

But can we just simply clap behind the scenes?

Or can we clap with complete surprise that we are clapping at all?

clapping can be for joy, and clapping for the joy of clapping…

Or clapping can be just for the hell of it, just because it appears that it is expected.

Or clapping can be elusive without focus…but it certainly better to clap than getting the clap..

Clapping could be for when you think you have a good thing going.

Or can clapping just simply get down, dirty and diabolical?

Or you can anticipate the clap? or just waited out since you are not sure when to clap.. Regardless, clapping feels good..

Or can one be to studious to clap?

do we sometimes forget what we are clapping for?

Or could we clap in hope that two holes of a donut actually fit somewhere?

Even if you are an authority figure?

Clapping can be in a line..

or it can be in unison..

or clapping can certainly be overwhelmingly…

you can certainly be king and clap

or simply a taxi driver..

Whatever the activity is it certainly cannot be done in Riverside. Especially during City Council.. because again and again you will hear the following ” We don’t applaud during public comment or otherwise, so we can include others with other opinions at the dais, so no applaud at the proceedings”.

But we could certainly clap at a bike rally, I think…I need to check..it depends on the country and the leader.

Or should we attempt to meet with clappers and find out what they are really all about?

Should we’d be told we cannot do this in the arena of the peoples arena of expression and free speech? Or should we just be happy to be just where we are? This is definitely an item to think about.. Clapping is a universal language that reaches far beyond our perception of our humanness. So why would we not want to do it? Because we are told not too?

But in any event, we look toward our human nature, we look at our provocativity, we look at the future in Riverside, has it gone bananas? Or just simply become a Banana Republic?

So shouldn’t authority just try to get along with clappers?

Well, of course there are exceptions, unless your General Clapper.. (Doesn’t he look a bit like City Manager Scott Barber?)

Words of Wisdom for a new Mayor,”If you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.. – Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. NOW TAGGED LOCAL BLOGGERS OR LOCAL MEDIA? RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM

AS A SIDE NOTE, I’VE BEEN TOLD THAT CUSSING AND SPITTING WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, AND A HEAP OF BOOK LEARNING NOT NECESSARY IN ORDER TO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013 AT 1:00PMSince the council always agree on everything, I know they’ll agree with this one. Will council keep Councilmember Steve Adam’s mouth in check long enough as to not make a reckless statement which may be interpreted as fighting words by the other side.

UPDATE: 02.05.2013: POWER LINE PROJECT APPROVED 5:0 BY CITY COUNCIL.What next? The City of Jurupa Valley filing suit against the City of Riverside? An additional law suit against the City of Riverside for an alleged illegal tax, of which was charged to residents in what is known as the “reliability charge”. The reliability charge is $10.00 dollar monthly utility charge seen on residents bills, which was never voted on by the residents therefore possible legal ramifications in regards to violations in reference to Proposition’s 218 and 26. Lastly, a possible IRS audit as a result of alleged misuse of Federal Bonds? How much can the City of Rivereside’s legal fund take? Mayor Bailey thinks we are in good standing after told by CFO Brent Mason we have $400 million in reserves, but let’s not tell him there are rules and restriction to the use of these reserves which are actually investment funds.

The City of Riverside’s darling in lobbying, Cindy Roth, and her lobbying group, the Greater Riverside Chamber of Commerce, was out in force with this mailer sent to members.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

At this point, the City of Riverside is still in need of a legitimate Chamber of Commerce that truly represents real business.

THE RELIABILITY CHARGE: A UTILITY ANOMALY?

Each month since 2008 the citizens of Riverside have been paying a $10.00 charge on their utilities bill that was originally intended for the construction and expansion of transmission lines. These lines would give the City of Riverside a back-up system in case a disaster occurred as we were told. But is this really a tax? This in turn would be a violation of Proposition 26.

The City of Jurupa states that the City of Riverside’s route encompasses prime land which in turn would destroy the value. The City of Jurupa Valley states that there are alternative routes available. The City of Riverside’s position is that the route is the only route available. TMC understands that the City of Riverside has spent a cost of over $20K for an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), which may be the reason for snubbing the City of Jurupa Valley. Bailey went to the City of Jurupa Valley for a meeting, but nothing appeared to come from it. The position of Riverside in reference to the transmission line route was maintained.

Again, most people thought the City of Riverside were neighbors with the City of Jurupa Valley, and that we were friends being neighboring cities, but is this going to turn out to be another Hatfield’s & McCoys?

According to the Press Enterprise, on Monday, Jan. 14, Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce President Dan Rodriguez met with Riverside Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey to discuss how the Interstate 15 route would impact commercial, industrial and residential development that would bring jobs, tax revenue and valuable services to Jurupa Valley. Chamber director Ron Anderson and Jurupa Valley council members Laura Roughton and Frank Johnston also attended the meeting. In a memo to Bailey, Rodriguez warned that “this project would eliminate approximately 806 homes in the city of Jurupa Valley, which will affect the local school district and eliminate future customers for businesses …” TMC was also told that the transmission route would cut through land considered prime realestate. Jurupa Valley Councilman Frank Johnston described the meeting as “disappointing, but not surprising.” This is reference to the collaboration with Riverside Mayor Rusty Bailey.

Did our fare leader, Mayor William “Rusty” Bailey leave a bad taste in the minds of the leadership of Jurupa Valley? Or could we assume that the tone and atmosphere was such that it reflected ‘fighting words’? With that in mind, are the two cities to embrace in another expensive legal battle? One that the City of Riverside may lose at another enormous cost to the taxpayer? That my friends is left to be seen…

As told by a former councilman, the way they understood it at the time the ‘reliability charge’ was to pay for transmission lines. The reliability charge was to pay for three specific things…but continued to state that it was not to pay for all of those three specific things, but it was to pay for a component of those specific things. Well are you confused already citizens of Riverside, well just ask our neighbors and any of the Councilpeople next door at the City of Jurupa Valley.

If the the City of Riverside’s reliability charge was originally for transmission lines as it was passed by City of Riverside Councilmembers, we should at this time have $150 million in the pot to pay for them cash! But, again we have a but! Even if we had the $150 million available to pay for these transmission lines cash, would it be a violation of Proposition 26, since it appears that the there is no true benefit to the citizens of Riverside? Again, the City Council at the time understood that the reliability charge was for new transmission lines, but currently Dave Wright states it was intended to be used for other purposes. Such as …

One was the debt on the riverside energy resource center, which is four 50 megawatt units near the waste water treatment plant that provide peaking generation, the debt on those 4 units is approximately $200 million.

Also, at that point in time when the reliability charge was put in place we had some low cost coal power contracts that expired and we weren’t legally able to replace them with power that cost as low as that coal, so we had doubling or tripling in the cost of replacement that power.

In addition the riverside transmission reliability project which was our cost of about $150 million, the entire project including all of Edison cost, our portion of that project was $150 million, also will have some debt associated with it. So the amount of the reliability charge revenue each year 20 to 25 million.

The debt on work and dprt on work is about $30 to $35 million and you add to that the cost of replacement energy that may be renewable or other sorts of energy. Another 10 to 15 million.

The annual cost are $50 million, and this is off the top of my head..so I have to go back and get….(we assume the figures).

The reliability charge will cover about half that. So that all was included when we looked at our rate projections, cause we project our cost 10 years. We project the rate increases 10 years. We look at what we can do and the rate freeze.

So folks it appears that the reliability charge that you pay each month is being used by the City of Riverside to pay for debt.

And yes, there will be cost of living type of increases that occur at the end of the rate freeze. There always going to be cost of living type living increases that are required in water, groceries, gasoline and anything else that you purchase. Mr. Wright went on to say that our rates our competitive, our rates are lower than the surrounding service providers, and they are projected to continue to be.

Was the original intention of the reliability charge presentation when brought to council chambers to decieve and misdirect the then council people on the dais? Is this charge to the Riverside residents not really a charge, but a tax? and a direct violation of Proposition 26? Should this issue originally been on the ballot for a vote by the Citizens of Riverside? If it wasn’t, should the Citizen’s of Riverside be entitled to a refund? This of course was not answered by Utilities Director Dave Wright, when the question was raised in public comment. Other questions being asked by Riverside residents are tiered pricing on water and electrical legal? Another good question for a Prop 218 Attorney to answer.

As one of the major property owners affected by the power lines I find Mr. Wright’s comments totally uninformed. Anyone who has dealt with an Edison easement knows they are prohibitively restrictive. SCE grants a license that is revocable and can be altered at any time SCE deems to their benefit. I wonder how many auto dealerships Mr. Wright has discussed my location with, to date he has never even bother to discuss this with me. To be sure this is a totally self serving and condenscending move by the City of Riverside it is obvious they could care less about Jurupa Valley and its residents. – Alan Sharp, Commenter on the PE

Deputy Superintendent of Schools Mike Fine goes over the 16 second mark at public comment and no arrest made. What does Mr. Fine have that Karen Wright doesn’t? Is is it something possibly called ‘access’.

New word of the week and how it was used, coming soon from the following ethics appeal hearing. No folks, it wasn’t “constipation” as someone indicated they thought Davis said. The word, “consternation”, amazement or dismay that hinders or throws into confusion. TMC thanks Councilman Paul Davis for the “big word” of the week.

At the January 15, 2013 Ethics appeal against Chris Mac Arthur, the City Council founded their was no violation of the ethics code. The questions that arose was who is really in charge of Councilman Chris Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder? This now leads us to believe that the Ethic Panel was mislead and misinformed by City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber. In another bit of disturbing information, TMC has been told that legislative aide Chuck Conder and City Manager Scott Barber are good friends. We were told “they go way back.” So does Chris Mac Arthur maintain stability with Conder because he has the ‘in’ with Barber? Did this in any way implicate the ethics complaint against Mac Arthur? Or even Bailey? What about the relationship between Councilman Steve Adams and the City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Manager Scott Barber, who have been seen at various water holes having a libation or two, or so forth.. Regardless, why would City Manager Scott Barber see it fit to put the citizen’s and city employees of Riverside at risk? Regardless, it was all about the “bitch” word that was king at this showdown. What else can we say boys will be boys..

But the way City Manager Scott Barber and City Attorney Greg Priamos handled the direction of the December 13, 2012 Ethics Hearing was to misaguide the panel, and therefore their decision. On page 23 of the transcript, Barber states that “these complaints have been investigated and that he had taken whatever action was appropriate.” The part that got me was the “whatever action”, meaning there wasn’t really anything conclusive regarding Barber’ investigation. Then Barber refers to the California State Constitution with reference to privacy rights for public employees, stating that “those rights preclude me from discussing any confidential personnel matters.” One of the incidents referred to a “knife”. The action should have superseded this right and become a police matter, and that never happened. But as indicated Councilman Chris Mac Arthur brought these complaints to the City Manager for review and investigation. But Mr. Mac Arthur, as the employee contract indicates, has the power to teminate via his direction to the City Manager. Therefore, it is appearing that we do have another “dog and poney show” of the original hearing where the activities were orchestrated and designed to produce a favorable end result.

But we all new what would happen this January day, the 22nd and year 2013 when council again possibly misguided by the the City Attorney and City Manager, voted against the alleged accusations against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur.

At extreme difficulty to find out who is really in charge of legislative aid Chuck Conder, via questioning by Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Andy Melendrez, the following was founded. The City Manager has ultimate ‘hiring’ and ‘firing’ authority, however, City Councilmember’s are in fact in charge of their legislative aide. This appeared to be an uncomfortable and tense situation for Barber, do to his body language and visual blood flushing to his head. Was he having difficulty telling the truth? Now, it appears to TMC that the adjudicating body, who was the Ethics Complaint Panel, was not fully clear about this due to the manipulation of information directly from City Attorney Primos and City Manager Barber, and allegedly was coached before hand as allegedly in the Rusty Bailey ethics complaint. If in fact these alleged incidents occurred, would this change the ultimate purpose of the ethics panels duties?

Chuck didn’t do anything but this is a political move to turn voters against Chris MacArthur. Look most of us know and have seen how it works. Chuck is just to nice and I can contest to pushing someone’s buttoms. The move is on to put a selected group in office and everyone will be used. Mark was used for votes as Bailey didn’t have a shot at getting elected. Mark’s Military service hit the hearts of voters and other tricks by Bailey were used. Mark is a close friend of Art and that put him out. All the fuss about this is just the beginning of what the future holds. We saw Riverside get National coverage as a citizen was handcuffed and removed because she spoke over 3 mins and the new Mayor had his City Attorney order the police to remove the citizen. We have seen many complaints of disrespect and even using kids for p…olitical gain by our new Mayor. Lessons not learned yet by voters is nothing good comes with corrupted elected officials. Lawsuits will continue and the blame will be place on others to protect the guilty. Loyality goes only so far as the bribes and criminal acts take front stage. Bell citizens set back until they stood up to their corrupt elected officials who are now on trial. Riverside has to eiither step up or wait for a Bell results. Citizens of Riverside now have been put on notice they can not speak to truth or ask serious questions. One lady learned that and has a criminal record and it doesn’t matter that the City Attorney broke the laws of a citizens Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights. Many remember the years when Mobesters rule and then convicted elected officals ruled but 2013 history repeats itself. Democracy is lost to this great city and we have to work together to get it back. – Jackie Rawlings, Commenter on the Press Enterprise

But it appeared to be an all out war against the contender Dvonne Pitruzzello by Counciman Steve Adams. Why’ll Adams asked Pitruzzello if she actually witnessed. At one point, Ms. Pitruzzello even addressed Adams as ‘sweetheart.’ But Adams contued to insist if Pitruzzello was witness to this knife wielding episode by Conder. Her attempt to state that she was witness to Conder using his finger in a vulgar way was squashed.

At the end of this ordeal, Councilman Adams walked by Pitruzzello from the dais while intentionally directing a dastardly smirk toward her. What was Adams trying to inadvertently tell Ms. Pitruzzello?

Was it to say something insidious about the confrontation, prompting a valid evaluation and questioning of the whole council ordeal? Dvonne Pitruzzello made it known that the ethics appeal process regarding Councilman Chris Mac Arthur was a “dog and pony show.” The heated exchange went something as this.

Adams: I have only one question for the appellant. Do you have any first hand knowledge of the incident?

Dvonne: Which one?

Adams: The one with which you are filing the complaint, and now the appeal?

Pritruzzello: I filed the complaint on three incidents.

Adams: Did you see the incident of which there was an accusation of something with the knife that was unfounded. Do you have first hand knowledge..

Pitruzzello: No, but I was flipped off at a city council meeting.

Adams: No, do you have first hand knowledge, let’s stick with one question at a time.

Pitruzzello: But that’s not what we are debating.

Adams: Yes it is..

Pitruzzello: No it’s not. We are debating if it should be appealed or not.

Adams: I’m trying to find out if you have first hand knowledge.

Pitruzzello: We are debating if it should be appealed or not.

Adams continued to badger Pitruzzello to answer a question unrelated to the actual appeal process. Down the road Councilman Adams stated:

Adams: If an event never happened, everything after that no longer exist. It doesn’t count. So my question is, do you have first hand knowledge were you there were you present, do you understand what you saw was to be true as to what was the accusation against Mr. Conder.

Pitruzzello: Sweetheart you are not listening.

Adams: No I’m listening..the answer is yes you saw or no you didn’t?

Did Councilman Adams really understand the appeal process at hand? It appeared he didn’t according to City Attorney and Pitruzzello, but maintained he did. But he continued to ‘bully’ his unrelated questioning toward Pitruzzello, when the legal issue was the ‘appeal process.’ It appeared when creviced into a corner whereby he could not rationally respond to the issue at hand, he abruptly motioned to dismiss the appeal. As Mayor Bailey mentioned in purpetouity at his State of the City speech, “the Riverside Way”? Again, Adams is one who has been seen at local watering holes with Priamos and Barber. Barber, of course, good friends and buddies with Conder. Can we consider some incestious favoritism and to the extent of cronyism in this situation? We have yet to revisit Bailey’s ethics complaint that was brought by Self Appointed Citizen Auditor Vivian Moreno.

Incidently, Mayor Bailey’s legislative aide Mark Earley, who was incidently ‘let go’, and Councilman’s Mac Arthur’s legislative aide Chuck Conder did not appear at the Council hearing. Regardless, an OSHA investigation of the knife wielding incident is still ongoing.

What TMC believes to be true was that the adjudicating body was deceived and manipulated in their decision by City Attorney Greg Priamos and City Mananger Scott Barber. Intentionally? The question is what is the true purpose of the ethics panel when they are not allowed to actually have direct witnesses?

Self Appointed Citizen Auditor went on to say the following about the complaint at public comment:

Chuck Conder called Raychele Sterling and myself Stupid Bitches. He flipped Dvonne off when you were sitting here. For you Chris Mac Arthure to condone this behavior from your personal employee of yours is a reflection of who you are. WEAK, IGNORANT, or Just plain STUPID. The Lying, the cheating and the stealing that goes on here at City hall on a regular basis is criminal.

Every single one of you know that all these situation occured. Every single one of you knows Scott Barber Riverside City Manager, lied to OSHA. over this situation. He should be fired for putting the Staff, Public and Council in harms way.

A question. Why would your City Manager Scott Barber feel the need to lie to OSHA? If there is any work place violence that happens at City Hall you the council sitting here are to blame because you know of the situation. Maybe its because CHUCKIE and BARBER go way back and Scott Barber will support his buddies no matter what they do.

This is merely an excercise in Paper Trailing so when some one comes here AGAIN and we have a political occurance of Gun Violence We know whom will be to blame All of you.

You guys know what you do, and you all know what goes on at City Hall We know what your doing. And now Chuckie wants to be a councilman! Scott Barber you deserve him!

All of you here today are representive of Chuck Condor. This is what happened: Chuck Conder pulled a knife on Colonel Mark Early and you Fired Mark Early. Chuck Conder called Raychele Sterling and myself Stupid Bitches and we notified Chris Mac Arthur imediately. Chuck Conder flipped Dvonne Pitruzello off right here in Council Chambers and you did nothing.

So now you can do what Council things you do. And you try to let this just die but it’s not.. and this is just another example of who you all are. WEAK, IGNORANT and Just Plain STUPID.

“Dog and pony show” is a colloquial term which has come to mean a highly promoted, often over-staged performance, presentation, or event designed to sway or convince opinion for political, or less often, commercial ends. Typically, the term is used in a pejorative sense to connote disdain, jocular lack of appreciation, or distrust of the message being presented or the efforts undertaken to present it.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND THE ADJUDICATING BODY MISINFORMED? SO NOW WHAT? WILL THE COUNCIL NOW HAVE THE GUMPTION TO TAKE ACTION?

Rumor is that the some of the panel was made by the very same people that heard the Bailey ethics complaint, this was because some of the original panel members refused, because they did not want to be a part of this decision making pane hearing a complaint against Councilman Chris Mac Arthur. Barber continues to lie and supterfuge the councilmembers on the dais. Councilmember Davis continually had to repeat the question as to whom is really responsible for their legislative assistant. The question as to who is directly responsible for the behavior of their legislative assistants is the councilmember. The councilmember also has the termination authority via their direction to the City Manager.

At the beginning of the hearing Mayor Bailey made it be known that no new evidence would be considered, and if it was could not be considered. Councilmember Adams asked the question twice thereafter during the proceeding if any new evidence came in. He was corrected by Priamos twice as there wasn’t.

What appears to be true and apparent was that Mr. Barber and Mr. Priamos led the adjudicating body to believe that Mr. Barber was directly responsible for the behavior of the legislative assistant. Further, Mr. Mac Arthur is directly responsible for the behavior of his legislative assistant and he has the ability to fire or terminate his legislative assistant at anytime, under his direction to the City Manager. This, all per City of Riverside’s employment contract.

NEW FORMAT FOR THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT: BETTER? OR LESS TRANSPARENT?

Has the new monthly report format been changed to give the illusion of financial stability for the City of Riverside? In the new report we have sections which appear not to be ‘actual’ but a ‘forecast’, such as the general fund budget forecast, general fund revenue forecast and general fund expenditure forecast.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE

Old version as indicated above, one could simply see what’s in the general fund for that particular month, as opposed to the new formatted version. New formatted monthly investment report removes the “Pooled Cash and Investment By Fund” section and replaced with “Forcast” reports. Such as General Fund Budget Forcast Report, General Fund Revenue Forecast Report and General Fund Expediture Forcast Report. The third pic shows Mayor’s Bailey office was overbudgeted by over $100,000.00, was this to pay for the new teleprompter that he used at the State of the City address? Well anyway, the new format was signed off by Chief Financial Officer Brent Mason.

Brent Mason, CFO Sorry… Brent Mason, CFO

CDBG MONIES USED FOR INCUBATOR COMPANIES, ONE OF WHICH WENT DEBUNK.. Giving Federal CDBG monies to incubator companies, is that legal? Even though many at public comment asked that it be removed from the consent calender for more discussion, City Council unanimously voted on it. Even Councilman Paul Davis and Councilman Andy Melendrez who appeared most concerned about and questioned the funds use voted on it. This was item #16 on the Consent Calender for January 22, 2013. CDBG funding requires citizen participation, nowhere found on the document. So, what our CDBG funds and what should they actually be allocated for? Well, let’s start with the following.

Community Development Block Grant Program – CDBG: The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs. Beginning in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest continuously run programs at HUD. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a formula basis to 1209 general units of local government and States.

About the Program: The CDBG program works to ensure decent affordable housing, to provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. CDBG is an important tool for helping local governments tackle serious challenges facing their communities. The CDBG program has made a difference in the lives of millions of people and their communities across the Nation.

Citizen Participation: A grantee must develop and follow a detailed plan that provides for and encourages citizen participation. This integral process emphasizes participation by persons of low or moderate income, particularly residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, slum or blighted areas, and areas in which the grantee proposes to use CDBG funds. The plan must provide citizens with the following: reasonable and timely access to local meetings; an opportunity to review proposed activities and program performance; provide for timely written answers to written complaints and grievances; and identify how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate.

LET’S NOT MENTION THE CITY TREES THAT TAXPAYERS HAVE PAID INTO AND ARE NOT MAINTAINED. LAST YEAR RESIDENTS SAW THIS IN WARD 1 AS A RESULT OF UNMAINTAINED CITY TREES. OF COURSE THE CITY IS QUICK TO TERRORIZE THE CITIZENS BY CITATIONS AGAINST WOOD STREET RESIDENTS. WELL COUNCILMAN GARDNER ISN’T THIS YOUR BLOCK? WHAT ABOUT ALL THE UNCUT TREES AND EXORBITANT AMOUNTS OF FALLEN PALM FRAWNS, THAT INCIDENTLY, MOST RESIDENTS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. STREET SWEEPER’S DON’T, RESIDENTS DO, AND THE DON’T APPRECIATE THE TICKETS THAT CODE GIVES TO THESE RESIDENTS WHEN THEY FORGET TO MOVE THEIR VEHICLES. WHAT’S MORE EMBARASSING IS WHEN THEY HAVE FRIENDS, RELATIVES, LANDSCAPING OR REPAIR PEOPLE OVER WHICH RECIEVE CITY TICKETS. WHAT NOW COUNCILMAN MIKE GARDNER? IS IT WORTH THE EXTRA $40 BUCKS TO LOSE THE SUPPORT OF A CONSTITUENT?

“Recent actions taken by Riverside authorities confirm my suspicion that there are two set of rules by which Riverside residents should be expected to live by, or face the repercussions by local authorities via the Riverside Police Department, the District Attorney’s office, and City Hall Officials. “The de-valuation of a Riverside citizens life and of their pets. “An RPD officer can go into your backyard while you are not home and shoot your dog dead under the premise that the officer was in the act of performing their duties and was allegedly in fear for their own life after the officer had put themselves in that position. “Can not Riverside residents keep a guard dog in their gated yard to protect their home without the risk of coming home and being told that their beloved pet has been shot to death by the RPD ?

“The fact that Riverside police chief Sergio Diaz says that there is nothing wrong with the RPD current policies and procedures regarding the tragic death of a Casa Blanca resident is irresponsible, and further endangers the lives of both Riverside police officers and residents. Imagine Jerry Carroll saying this comment after four white officers had shot 19 year old black teenager Tyisha Miller in
1999.

“I do not blame the officer in the Casa Blanca incident, I blame the policy and procedure of allowing officers to drive while using a computer. Many police agencies do not allow this for obvious reasons.

“I would bet my life on this… God forbid if this 7 year old girl had been Mayor Bailey’s daughter, the man would not have been free to walk away after running them down regardless of the reasoning behind it. Someone would have hell to pay for this I can tell you that much. The man would have been arrested and charged with a minimum manslaughter charge if not more.

“Two different rules to live by and the de-valuation of the life of a Riverside resident when it involves Riverside authorities and their employees.

UPDATE: 02.03.2013: ACCORDING TO THE PRESS ENTERPRISE PARKING CONTROL REPRESENTATIVE JOE WILLIAMS WOULD BLACK OUT AT WORK! If Mr. Williams has had a history of black outs with reference to a seizure condition, why would he be driving? Why wouldn’t those close to him family, friends, employees and employer allow him to drive a vehicle, knowing his condition of periodically experiencing black outs? When on the job does he, as an employee, drive a city vehicle or a operates a segway? He has been prescribed seizure medication, and many times these medications will indicate not to drive or operate heavy machinery. Does he take his medication daily as indicated? Did his physcian counsel him that he shouldn’t drive? Did he knowingly not tell DMV of his condition? Would the two victims be alive today if someone had done the right thing? The below reports documentation to two incidents which occurred why in the employment of the City of Riverside.

RIVERSIDE’S OWN FIVE BEFORE MIDNIGHT BLOGGER MARY SHELTON BREAKS HER SHOULDER IN A FALL ON A CITY CURVE. Her surgery on Tuesday the 29th exposed what was seen as a shoulder bone which was badly crushed to the point of no repair. Her shoulder bone was rebuilt with the use of a prosthetic titanium insertion which will replace the bone lost as seen in the x-ray.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Mary thanks all of those who emailed her with good wishes and of their concerns for a speedy recovery which includes Councilmembers Steve Adams, Paul Davis, Mike Gardner; Director of Public Works Tom Boyd and City Manager Scott Barber. Shelton is to be awarded the 2013 Bill Howe Award for Police Accountability by the Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability on Monday 11th at the Community Settlement Association, 4366 Bermuda Avenue, Riverside, CA , 92507, 6:30pm-8:00pm. RPD Lt. Valmont Graham will also be awarded the 2013 Bill Howe Award for Police Accountability. Free and Open the Public.

AGAIN, FOR YOUR SAFETY, IF IN RIVERSIDE PLEASE WATCH OUT FOR CITY OFFICIALS IN WEAVING CARS! WE ARE TOLD THERE MAY STILL BE TWO SETS OF STANDARDS! BUT OF COURSE THAT IS A QUESTION FOR THE EXPERT ON SURFING ON A LAPTAP WHILE DRIVING,

COMPUTER WHIZ CHIEF NACHO CHEESE SERGIO DIAZ, WHO MAINTAINS IT CAN STILL BE DONE, IF YOU’RE A POLICE OFFICER.

UPDATE: 02.05.2013: THE THIRD ANNUAL RUSS LEACH SUPERBOWL MEMORIAL WEEKEND EXTRAVAGANZA CLAIMS ANOTHER. RPD LT. LARRY GONZALEZ ARRESTED ON SUSPICION OF DUI AFTER RUNNING INTO A MAILBOX AND A RETAINING WALL IN AN UNMARKED CITY VEHICLE AROUND 2:00 AM IN THE MORNING.All were at at retirement party for the retiring Lt. Chris Manning. It was also indicated that the Police Chief Sergio Diaz was attendance among a who’s who of others. Mayor Rusty Bailey who left the pow pow at around 9:00pm, stated that “He (Lt. Larry Gonzalez) was sober when he left”, according the PE. That folks was from the mouth of independent voice himself. But others at the party indicate a different story regarding Gonzalez’s alleged sobriety, and why didn’t others there step up to the plate to give the Lt. a ride home? Lt. Gonazales was not sober from those in attendance unlike the Mayor Bailey’s statement to the press. Not a good start for Mayor’s Bailey first months in office whereby his statements have more contradiction than truth. What about the other’s who made it home that very night without incident of hitting a block wall or even a pedestrian? What will the outcome be? Will Lt. Gonzalez DUI have a favorable outcome in the court system, or is this truly a visual formality? Will Lt. Gonzalez be made to be an example, regardless of the other officers before him who didn’t make the press?

IS THE CITY THAT BROKE, WHY IS THE CITY TICKETING VEHICLES IN THIS PRIVATE MALL? PIC SUBMITTED TO TMC OF A CITY EMPLOYEE TICKETING THE BLACK VEHICLE NEXT TO IT IN THE RALPH’S SHOPPING CENTER ON MAGNOLIA AND JURUPA.

RIVERSIDE FORGOTTEN..

THE BACKSTRAND BUILDING, MARCH 27, 1940, ON SIXTH AND MAIN

TMC, RATED RIVERSIDE’S MOST “SLANDEROUS” AND MEZZSPELLED, “MISSPELLED” AND “OPINIONATED” BLOG SITE! TEMPORARILY BLOCKED BY THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES WITHIN THE CITY, THEN UNBLOCKED. I GUESS YOU CANNOT DO THAT ACCORDING TO ACLU. RATED ONETWO ONE STAR OUT OF FIVE IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY APPROVAL RATINGS.. TMC IS NOW EXCLUSIVELY ON FILE WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE’S DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, AND PROSSIBLY POSSIBLY ON FILE WITH THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE’S POTENTIAL SLAPP SUIT LIST… WE WILL HAVE TO ASK GREGORY ABOUT THAT ONE ( OUR PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO CONTACT HIS PEOPLE)… AGAIN, THANK-YOU COMMUNITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE EMPLOYEE’S FOR YOUR SUPPORT! COMMENTS ALWAYS WELCOMED, ESPECIALLY SPELL CHECKERS! EMAIL ANONYMOUSLY WITH YOUR DIRT OR FOR CONTACT! THIRTYMILESCORRUPTION@HOTMAIL.COM